To my knowledge what that means is you could not go to China and operate as BY/KC0W. You can work China through Echolink because your signal originates from the U.S. Even if your signal is transmitted on a band you're not licensed to be on,like 4 meters in Europe, it's legal because you didn't transmit on that band. You transmitted on Echolink. Technically speaking.
Disclaimer: IANAL (I am not a lawyer) so any comments here are used to guide my interaction with the
system and not particularly recommendations for others to follow.
It is not clear to me if Echolink stations are subject to the 3rd party model with a control operator, the remote
station access similar to remote internet accessed HF stations, or a mix of both.
For US ops I view it as being comparable to using a remote HF station which is made available to licensed amateurs
via the internet. You are responsible for insuring when operating a remote HF system that you do not exceed the
scope of your license ie: You do not operate in the Extra Class bands if you hold a Tech, General or Advanced. Also
when using transmitters in another jurisdiction I am similarly responsible for complying with the government
authority with jurisdiction in the area where the transmitter is located. Just because I do not own the transmitter
does not exempt me from the local governing authority's rules.
Now introduce the Reciprocal Operating Privilege question. I would interpret that as being, one is responsible to insure
the foreign government approves your access and the FCC similarly sanctions your use of the foreign station through an
International Agreement. Each nation will have its own agreement with the US or possibly none at all. Most European
countries (
http://www.arrl.org/files/file/cept-ral.pdf) allow US ops the privilege of operating without further paperwork
other than a copy of the CEPT letter displayed in the above ARRL Link, their passport and a copy of their license.
In the Americas IARP is the governing guideline for US ops wishing to operate extra-territory in most of the Caribbean
basin, South America and Mexico. See the details at
http://www.arrl.org/iarp. You contact the League for an IARP permit
which they issue at no charge to the licensee for members and non-members alike.
Is this all necessary? I have not seen a definitive authority state how the construct of Echolink is viewed and governed. And I
do not wish to be the guinea pig when any government decides to make an example out of the radio operator they pluck from
the pool they catch breaking their rules. So I will only use systems where it is clear the remote setup falls into the domain of IARP,
CEPT, CITEL or authority of other issued document of the respective government in force.
Of course if the remote stations are viewed as mere repeater and subject to 3rd party traffic controls then it would seem the
distant op owning the station in use would be the stuckee with regulatory compliance. As I said, I have en zip as to who does
what to whose cow for how much money in this. Being risk adverse as well as averse, the rule of the day is simply just don't
do it except with well defined situations.